Play Problem

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=s7ht9d3ckqt987542&w=saqj983haj2dk52cj&n=st6542hkq4dqt64c6&e=skh87653daj987ca3&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=5cdp5np6sd6nppdppp]399|300[/hv]

The above was the diagram. In one room of the Vugraph match, Gold ran the spade lead round to the king, gave up a spade and played for North to have Qxx of diamonds. So that was -300. In the other room, declarer was in Six Spades and did not find Phantomsac's line, so that was one off. I do not know the scores in the other matches - maybe someone has a link to them.

[paulg]

This is a link to the full traveller. It seems no-one made a contract.

 

https://app.pianola....ilter=undefined

[wanoff]

1. I could be wrong (I'm sure I'll soon find out) but for me,Gold played it about right. Assuming the lead was a singleton, and 5♣ a 9 card pre-empt, the red suit splits are now equally likely. Gold beats 7 combinations and those who play for Q10xx beat 3. Plus Gold is a big winner if North is a total chimp.

 

2. N/S should play Lightener against all slams.

[rhm]

1. I could be wrong (I'm sure I'll soon find out) but for me,Gold played it about right. Assuming the lead was a singleton, and 5♣ a 9 card pre-empt, the red suit splits are now equally likely. Gold beats 7 combinations and those who play for Q10xx beat 3. Plus Gold is a big winner if North is a total chimp.

 

2. N/S should play Lightener against all slams.

I beg to differ and I think you are in deed wrong.

I would not have doubled any contract with the North hand. Apparently nobody else did, even though slam was bid 5 more times and once the contract was 7♦.

When you play Lightner doubles, you can still double if you are sure the slam will go down on any lead.

This one is just poor judgement on North behalf even though it was successful. Do not tell me the double asked for a heart lead.

After the opening lead, given what declarer knows North can hold for his double, his hand must look like it did.

I know Gold is a good player, but I doubt he saw the necessity to play the ♠A at trick one. He should have and he was probably annoyed with himself.

As declarer it never pays to believe your opponents act like beginners. If they do you will beat them anyway.

The double is bad on the actual layout, but with ♦Qxx it is a Palooka bid. Claiming both layouts are equally likely after North doubled is nonsense.

If I bid to 4♠ holding 8 trumps and 29 HCP combined and somebody doubles I will also not assume that trumps are breaking whether that was more likely a priori is besides the point

If you can not see the difference I feel sorry for you.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[lamford]

I know Gold is a good player, but I doubt he saw the necessity to play the ♠A at trick one. He should have and he was probably annoyed with himself.

As declarer it never pays to believe your opponents act like beginners. If they do you will beat them anyway.

The double is bad on the actual layout, but with ♦Qxx it is a Palooka bid. Claiming both layouts are equally likely after North doubled is nonsense.

If I bid to 4♠ holding 8 trumps and 29 HCP combined and somebody doubles I will also not assume that trumps are breaking whether that was more likely a priori is besides the point

If you can not see the difference I feel sorry for you.

I agree entirely with you on this thread, and it was a clear error by Gold. I would have kept quiet as North, and declarer would surely have gone off in Six Spades or Six No-trumps. After knocking out the spade, it is percentage to finesse the 9 on the first round, even if we think North is likely to double with Qxx as well as QTxx in diamonds. The distribution of diamonds is as follows:

North South %

Qxx Tx 0.125

Qx Txx 0.025

Qxxx T 0.083333333

QTx xx 0.125

QTxx x 0.25

QT xxx 0.008333333

QTxxx none 0.083333333

Txxx Q 0.083333333

Tx Qxx 0.025

T Qxxx 0

Txx Qx 0.125

xx QTx 0.025

none QTxxx 0

x QTxx 0

xxx QT 0.041666667

1

 

So, we can see that low to the king and then low to the nine succeeds in 65.8% of cases, and low to the jack only scores 53.3%. Once Gold has played low at trick one, however, he is short of an entry and cannot make it, so the error, as often, was at trick one. And there was a clear tabbing error by me as well, but the help file does not seem to show how to do this!

[nige1]

I agree entirely with you on this thread, and it was a clear error by Gold. I would have kept quiet as North, and declarer would surely have gone off in Six Spades or Six No-trumps. After knocking out the spade, it is percentage to finesse the 9 on the first round, even if we think North is likely to double with Qxx as well as QTxx in diamonds. The distribution of diamonds is as follows:

North South %

Qxx Tx 0.125

Qx Txx 0.025

Qxxx T 0.083333333

QTx xx 0.125

QTxx x 0.25

QT xxx 0.008333333

QTxxx none 0.083333333

Txxx Q 0.083333333

Tx Qxx 0.025

T Qxxx 0

Txx Qx 0.125

xx QTx 0.025

none QTxxx 0

x QTxx 0

xxx QT 0.041666667

So, we can see that low to the king and then low to the nine succeeds in 65.8% of cases, and low to the jack only scores 53.3%. Once Gold has played low at trick one, however, he is short of an entry and cannot make it, so the error, as often, was at trick one. And there was a clear tabbing error by me as well, but the help file does not seem to show how to do this!

• If you win the the opening lead with ♠A and LHO started with ♠Txxx(x) then, when you concede a ♠, RHO will lead a belated ♥K. Now, you can no longer enjoy the luxury of cashing ♦K before taking a deep ♦ finesse.
• LHO might open 5♣ with any number of ♣s between 10 and 8 -- some BBOer's need only 7 :). If you place RHO with five ♠s and ♥KQ then vacant spaces are roughly equal (about 5-5).. It's a reasonable assumption that RHO also holds ♦Q.
• 4 cases favour the deep ♦ finesse: -- when RHO has ♦QTxx (3) and ♦QTxxx (1) -- In the latter case, you carefully cash ♣A after the 1st ♦ finesse, to prepare for a red suit squeeze.
• 6-7 cases favour the ♦J finesse -- when RHO has ♦Qxx (3) and ♦Qx (3) (and, arguably) ♦Txxx (1).
• In all other cases, both win or both lose.
• If you intend to finesse ♦J anyway, then you might as well win the opening lead with ♠K to take advantage of a virtual cinch in the unlikely eventuality that ♠s break.
• We thank Rainer for his pity but a few of us still have difficulty grasping the analogy between considerations in a 29 HCP game and a 28 HCP misfit slam, with bdding starting at the 5-level

[lamford]

f you win the the opening lead with ♠A and LHO started with ♠Txxx(x) then, when you concede a ♠, RHO will lead a belated ♥K. Now you no longer have the luxury of cashing ♦K before taking a deep ♦ finesse.

I will indeed go off with stiff ten offside, but both lines will now fail when there is a singleton queen offside, and low to the nine is still better. And, yes, the calculations assume clubs 9-1 and spades 5-1.

 

Alternatively you can cash the king of diamonds first, failing with a singleton ten, but winning on a singleton queen. I don't think you can cater for both.

[wank]

There are some partners with whom I would not risk that, as they might regard it as SOS.

 

well, yes right you would be. we ended up in 6d after 5sxx.

[wanoff]

I will indeed go off with stiff ten offside, but both lines will now fail when there is a singleton queen offside, and low to the nine is still better. And, yes, the calculations assume clubs 9-1 and spades 5-1.

 

Alternatively you can cash the king of diamonds first, failing with a singleton ten, but winning on a singleton queen. I don't think you can cater for both.

 

At the table a diamond was played to the K at T2, so he would have picked up 10xxx Q.

I'm not sure about your calculations. You're giving the 1-4 diamond break to be twice as likely as a 2-3. That would make the 2-3 heart break twice as likely as 1-4 ??

[lamford]

At the table a diamond was played to the K at T2, so he would have picked up 10xxx Q.

I'm not sure about your calculations. You're giving the 1-4 diamond break to be twice as likely as a 2-3. That would make the 2-3 heart break twice as likely as 1-4 ??

He would indeed have picked that up, but would have lost to Qxxx as well, because of lack of entries. The calculations assume that North has seven red cards to South's three, and as there are five hearts and five diamonds, both suits are the same. I don't think that I am giving the 4-1 diamond break as twice as likely. When I add up the figures I get 3-2 0.475 4-1 0.44167 and 5-0 0.0833. And this will, of course, be the same for the heart suit. Again assuming South has nine clubs. If South has only eight clubs, then declarer's line will be right, but then South might have led one.

[jogs]

Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is the most likely. North doubled 6S because he was beating it; therefore he has five spades. Your post reminds me of this hand from the Chairman's Cup final:

 

[hv=pc=n&sn=Solodar&s=SK97HA53DKT72CK92&wn=Kendrick&w=ST83HKJ742DCT8765&nn=Nilsson&n=SAQ6542HQ6DAJ6CA3&en=Lamford&e=SJHT98DQ98543CQJ4&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=P1D2H2S3H3SP4CP4HP4NP5HP5NP6CP6DP7SDPPP&p=D9D2S3D6S8SQSJS7SAHTS9ST&c=12]399|300[/hv]

 

On board 2 of the last segment, North did not correct to the cold 7NT because he thought my partner might have made a psychic lightner double trying to get them out of 7S. I said at the time that would have been a brilliant effort.

[hv=pc=n&sn=Solodar&s=SK97HA53DKT72CK92&wn=Kendrick&w=ST83HKJ742DCT8765&nn=Nilsson&n=SAQ6542HQ6DAJ6CA3&en=Lamford&e=SJHT98DQ98543CQJ4&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=P1D2H2S3H3SP4CP4HP4NP5HP5NP6CP6DP7SDPPP&p=D9D2S3D6S8SQSJS7SAHTS9ST&c=12]532|400[/hv]

 

This seems to work. The 399/300 was changed to 532/400.

[benlessard]

Am i the only one who think bidding 5NT isnt that clear ? With hearts like 87632 you are favorite to have a H loser.

 

After that I see 3 potential danger, 1- A D loser, 2- a 4-1 H break 3- partner made an agressive X with a club void.

 

IDK what i would have done IRL but for me 5NT isnt automatic. Very interesting hand.

[lamford]

Am i the only one who think bidding 5NT isnt that clear ? With hearts like 87632 you are favorite to have a H loser.

 

After that I see 3 potential danger, 1- A D loser, 2- a 4-1 H break 3- partner made an agressive X with a club void.

 

IDK what i would have done IRL but for me 5NT isnt automatic. Very interesting hand.

Two players who had the auction (5C)-Double-(Pass) elected to pass, collecting 300. One or two strong players who were asked for their opinion on Facebook also passed.

[nige1]

Am i the only one who think bidding 5NT isnt that clear ? With hearts like 87632 you are favorite to have a H loser. After that I see 3 potential danger, 1- A D loser, 2- a 4-1 H break 3- partner made an agressive X with a club void.IDK what i would have done IRL but for me 5NT isnt automatic. Very interesting hand.

You are not alone. John Matheson, Scottish expert, would have passed 5♣X for the reasons advanced by BenLessard.

John thinks that 5N should suggest 2-3 places to play but 6♣ should show a pronounced 2-suiter.

If John had bid 5N, he would have passed 6♠X, since partner showed no interest in either red suit.

[benlessard]

IDK what should be the difference between 6C and 5NT here. However I think overcaller can scramble over scramble with 6C. Without discussion I would assume 5NT--??

 

6D should suggest D+M

6H H+S

so maybe 6C should suggest a better S with tol in one red.

 

I guess it should be a fun thing to sort out. In retrospect its true that 6C should be 2 suiters with short in the lastt suit while 5NT should be at least 2 or 3 in the 3rd suit.